hen a common understanding is achieved, differences in a
terms application resolution is possible. Only when we have a
common understanding, can we communicate without filtered
listening. Systems and programs are not different from we
individuals; they can share and communicate very effectively
through "metadata."
XML, RDF, FOAF, Metadata, Leveraging, Semantic Web, Feedback, Memberships (Links open onsite in a new window)
RDF and XML are complimentary standards for encoding and transporting meta data in a manner that maximizes the interoperability of independently developed data.
Friend of a Friend (FOAF) defines an RDF vocabulary for expressing meta data about people, and their interests, relationships and activities.
For the "normal" web site creator, knowledge of which metadata elements to include is quite different from those who build intranets, construct data models or have a need to interconnect between platforms (PC to UNIX).
It is clear that the use of search engines has become a part of daily life and a necessary utility for finding information. However the question of how to best apply and leverage search in varied information environments, such as databases, portals, and websites has yet to be adequately answered.
Search engines all attempt to do two basic tasks:
Different search engines employ different methods for accomplishing this task.
The ability to organize and store information, and to retrieve it readily, is called knowledge management. Traditionally, there have been three major methods of knowledge management: full text, taxonomy, and metadata.
Most organizations and or award program owners use a range of systems to present information. Each of these systems, in turn, uses its own set of categories (metadata) to organize the information it stores. A taxonomy is a structure that represents understanding of the content it possesses and uses. A taxonomy allows for creation which can centrally manage the controlled vocabularies and metadata that apply to all content. These vocabularies and metadata can then be consumed by a search application to return content in context.
Building a taxonomy and tagging content can both be laborious tasks, but the benefits and return on investment (time-ROI) more than justify the effort. Thankfully both of these processes can be made significantly easier with the help of "word mapping."
The utility of knowledge depends on its ease of recall, and by organizing ideas into a pattern makes them easier to remember. The key idea is efficiency. An essential idea when buried in a paragraph of words, can be difficult to find. With respect to "word maps", they have the following attributes to increase efficiency:
Hierarchical relationships are natural ordering principals that mirror the way we naturally think about content. We know that a laptop is a type of computer, and that a desktop is a type of computer and vice versa that computers can be either laptops or desktops. An associative (or “see-also”) relationship defines a non hierarchical relationship. This type of relationship can be used to relate terms that are conceptually but are not hierarchically related.
The next step in integrating taxonomy with search is to tag content with terms from the taxonomy. This process applies an extra layer of controlled metadata to content that can then be leveraged by a search application. In data storage systems with large amounts of content, tagging is often done with the help of automatic indexing software. It is also important to note that not every piece of content needs to be tagged. Some content benefits from extensive tagging more than others, a web site author must determine what content is of highest value to its users and is essential.
Once content has been tagged a search application can leverage the taxonomy categories and improve both the recall and precision of a search. Since there are several constraints within the award community with respect maximizing individual award program owners presence within a community which is not fragmented. We will mention only two.
If you have ever worked with a data base, done a search and replace for a document or web page or created a spreadsheet which would be sorted by columns, the inherit nature of words: spelling, capitalization and so forth has probably rendered unintended consequences.
An acronym for Award Sites is AS! However the search term "award sites" provides more relevant search results, than AS! Because a significant number of persons use the latter rather than the former. Also as a result of more widely used by archived and active web sites over the course of time.
Other award program index groups and organizations who have as members those in the award community also have acronym's. Take APEX and the alternative approved spelling. The name of this organization shall be the Association for Positive Ethical eXchange. The only two proper ways to write the name of this organization shall be “APEX” {all capital letters} and “Association for Positive Ethical eXchange” {with a small “e” and capital “X” beginning the last word.
Association for Positive Ethical eXchange receives more first place search results than APEX or Apex.
Leveraging: Example One
So far we have covered to entities which are related to the award community. If our glossary of acronyms and common usage was complete (covered ALL award program related groups and associations), we would accomplish several objectives or purposes. The whole of the award community would be uniform. Which is not take away individuality, rather present a methodology to leverage search engine queries and produce a density of search results.
Drawing upon a glossary of acronyms and common usage, further density is leveraged by using the same preferred identification for associations and memberships. When the alt description is entered for a graphic or image, narrative is included in a web page and inclusion of key words. Remembering that key word density is correctly applied when a key word in the meta data is also on the web page. Otherwise its relevance is non existent.
Leveraging: Example Two
Word maps mentioned earlier can be navigational systems. They can also be a glossary of terms, which realistically are foreign to most who surf the Internet in search of knowledge. When terms relate to an award program owners criteria. How a web site is evaluated and so forth.
Several years ago award program owners joined together to produce the ABC Book of Award Givers. What most found was what everyone really thought. Different words. What was written in the summer of 2006 did not include ALL the award community. But we have a clear understanding. That if the AP community does not agree upon words used in the various criteria's. We can not expect that the surfing public would agree either.
Metadata can include either a minimum of meta elements, be expandable to encompass the Dublin Core or simply add a some very important ones like language, country, author and character set. In addition to those we have already mentioned.
A meta element not usually considered is "memberships."
<meta name="memberships" content="Award Sites, Association for Positive Ethical eXchange ">
To maintain consistency the name is plural and includes those which are generally agreed upon and published in a glossary. Which would be available at APEX.